Loose Change

[Schneed10]

Yeah, jsarno, you're dead wrong on the red and black thing. You're basically saying that if you flip a coin and it lands on heads 3 times in a row, then it's more than 50% likely to land on tails during the next flip.

That's flat out incorrect. Events that happened in the past are exactly that, in the past. They do nothing to change the probabilities of future outcomes.

Your stance makes you appear uneducated.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yeah, jsarno, you're dead wrong on the red and black thing. You're basically saying that if you flip a coin and it lands on heads 3 times in a row, then it's more than 50% likely to land on tails during the next flip.

That's flat out incorrect. Events that happened in the past are exactly that, in the past. They do nothing to change the probabilities of future outcomes.

Your stance makes you appear uneducated.

Whats the probability of it landing on its side?

[jamf]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

Whats the probability of it landing on its side?

In roulette, The equivalent is landing on a Zero or Double Zero.
The odds are 1 and 37 in doing so.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jamf

In roulette, The equivalent is landing on a Zero or Double Zero.
The odds are 1 and 37 in doing so.

And therein lies the house's advantage that is impossible to beat.

To play any single number on the board, you have a one in 37 chance of hitting it (one in 38 if the wheel has 0 and 00). But if you hit it, you only get paid 36 times your bet.

That's why you lose in the long run. Inevitably. Without fail. Go ahead, make a random number generator in excel, from one to 37. Try it out.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yeah, jsarno, you're dead wrong on the red and black thing. You're basically saying that if you flip a coin and it lands on heads 3 times in a row, then it's more than 50% likely to land on tails during the next flip.

That's flat out incorrect. Events that happened in the past are exactly that, in the past. They do nothing to change the probabilities of future outcomes.

Your stance makes you appear uneducated.

Really don't care how I appear, my wallet is much fatter for it...like I said, that's all the proof I need.

ps- My buddy, a DR. just won $750 using my method. I guess he's pretty uneducated too. hahaha

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Really don't care how I appear, my wallet is much fatter for it...like I said, that's all the proof I need.

ps- My buddy, a DR. just won $750 using my method. I guess he's pretty uneducated too. hahaha

what's a DR?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

what's a DR?

Doctor.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yeah, jsarno, you're dead wrong on the red and black thing. You're basically saying that if you flip a coin and it lands on heads 3 times in a row, then it's more than 50% likely to land on tails during the next flip.

That's flat out incorrect. Events that happened in the past are exactly that, in the past. They do nothing to change the probabilities of future outcomes.

Your stance makes you appear uneducated.

Sorry jsarno, but I would agree with Schneed here. I mean I have extensively studied statistics and gambling "techniques" are constantly disproved, starting at the 101 level.

I also done quite a bit of econometrics too. I am not trying to get into an argument about who is qualified, just want to let you know I have been educated in these fields. Last time I tried to let people know I was ripped a new one...thanks Schneed